Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

Training Expenses

14 posts / 0 new

Last post

Mon, 2013-04-15 05:02

OneTrikPony OneTrikPony's picture

Training Expenses

Does anyone have a house rule for training expenses that they can share? It just occurred to me that there should probably be a material cost to improving skills as I was just forced to consider the, roughly, $150-200 I spend each month on targets, ammunition, and range fees. (and I'm still not much better than I was 5 years ago. :-[ ) I spend at least that amount on gym membership, supplements, and the occasional trainer. A few months ago my boss just dropped a couple grand to send me to a seminar at a trade show. This shit is expensive. Seems to me that getting better at anything tends to cost quite a bit and the more you improve the more it costs. If 60 is a doctorate level of knowledge and technique how much should it cost to get to 70?

—

Mea Culpa: My mode of speech can make others feel uninvited to argue or participate. This is the EXACT opposite of what I intend when I post.

Mon, 2013-04-15 07:16

Maskin

I would say that if you have

I would say that if you have money to burn that makes learning much easier, but the most important factors are probably time, access (to learning materials and tools) and not least motivation. Time people have in plenty in EP, unless you are indentured, and of course those with money to spend can always engage in time accelerated learning and use fancy cognitive enhancers, software or maybe even psychosurgery programming. Access to learning material and tools will depend entirely on the skill. Some will be trivial/free, while more serious "toys" will require joining a collective or hypercorp to play with, although a lot of it could probably be simulated. Faction will matter a lot. Jovians will struggle to learn many skills, members of the planetary consortium will rely quite a bit on money to learn while further out it might depend on rep. Motivation is an interesting one. It suggests that if you study/train for something you are really interested in - especially if you have a clear goal and motivating instructors - then learning is generally faster/easier. If you need to learn something "useful" that you don't reeeally want to learn then concentrating and practicing can be a real chore and learning times (and so costs) might become much longer. I prefer to not get to realistic when it comes to character advancement as then it becomes a spreadsheet exercise and players might decide to spend a few months/years in an academy or university to improve. So advancement comes entirely from doing missions, and taking on new and bigger challenges (whether they fail or succeed as long they try) as well as roleplaying and contributing to the session. No training or anything like that. As long as learning the skill is within the realm of possibility it is entirely up to the player what they want to learn. Then again I also use a fairly abstract wealth stat system which means that learning costs could be considered a running cost (like a service) and as long as their wealth is good enough and they earn enough to maintain it then the cost of learning more exotic (read: expensive) skills can be covered.

—

Transhuman Mind

Mon, 2013-04-15 07:34

OneTrikPony OneTrikPony's picture

I think those are important

I think those are important considerations but... Typically; Time + Access = $$ there are some costs in the book; Trainers, Accelerated simulspace (1000c / month), I'm not certain what you're getting for your simulspace subscription. Is that just clock cycles or is there training software, VR environment training simulations included? Im not sure how to judge the actual 'value' of post doctoral, or olympic, level training. Today it costs mid to high six figures in Dollars.

—

Mea Culpa: My mode of speech can make others feel uninvited to argue or participate. This is the EXACT opposite of what I intend when I post.

Mon, 2013-04-15 07:50

Smokeskin

Why do you want to add this

Why do you want to add this to the game? For the sake of realism or to provide a money sink (which isn't nearly as horrible as it sounds - in the real world money is a strong motivator for lots of people and creating mechanical benefits from money can be a great way to align player and PC motivations)? If it is the latter, then you want to look more at PC income options. If it is for realism, I'd question if anyone actually gets any enjoyment from this part of the game being really accurate and instead go for something that was just realistic enough to not break immersion but at a level where it didn't interfere with increasing skills, and again this means looking at PC income. So I'd begin by deciding how much of a dent you want this to make in their finances.

Mon, 2013-04-15 10:41

Maskin

Yes, Smokeskin has a very

Yes, Smokeskin has a very good point. I can't offer any specific costs or rules, but four ways of approaching this might help the creative process: 1) As originally suggested money (or rep) could be needed to spend XP on certain skills at specific levels. Makes sense to pay for flight time, gun ranges, etc. This could be a great motivator as assignments rewards could then include special training which cancels the need for spending money on skills. 2) Add any costly education/training as an extra running cost (i.e. service) along with living expenses and backup insurance. 3) Certificates and official degrees carry a cost - at least in PC and Jovian territories, which is needed to be allowed to work as a pilot or be recognized as a lawyer, doctor, etc. 4) Allow money/rep to be spent instead of XP. I don't like this idea much. Myself, I prefer to keep advancement strictly to XP earned as it keeps the focus on playing the game and rewards getting into character and solving the challenges encountered and I worry that introducing educational/training costs would take the focus off that and constrain character development (although overcoming constraints can be very rewarding).

—

Transhuman Mind

Mon, 2013-04-15 16:50

OneTrikPony OneTrikPony's picture

Smokeskin wrote:Why do you

Smokeskin wrote:
Why do you want to add this to the game?

Because at character generation a rank 60 skill seems trivial. The way myself and the people I play with design characters it's unlikely that they won't have all core skills at 50 or better on the naked ego. After morph and gear modifications 60 - 80 is normal. Occasionally, someone will be able to justify a monster skill of 90+ with out producing a handycaped character. At first is was surprising to look at a sheet and see a character with 5 doctorates. But for characters that's the norm. Probably, a future filled with multi-disciplinary experts is an accurate description of what's coming down the pike. But I feel it should still be impressive. It should feel like an accomplishment. So, when a character has raw infosec of 70 out of the box I'd like to represent what an extraordinary level of skill that is, somehow. Getting that score up to 88 shouldn't be trivial. In addition. Because we don't get enough play time I like to hand out pretty significant amounts of REZ. Typically getting a score from 80 to 88 could be done in 2 sessions. (that might be 1 week of in game time but 2 months of real world time.) Anyhow, it's just something I'm thinking about. Thanks for your comments.

—

Mea Culpa: My mode of speech can make others feel uninvited to argue or participate. This is the EXACT opposite of what I intend when I post.

Tue, 2013-04-16 06:27

Smokeskin

OneTrikPony wrote:Smokeskin

OneTrikPony wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Why do you want to add this to the game?
Because at character generation a rank 60 skill seems trivial. The way myself and the people I play with design characters it's unlikely that they won't have all core skills at 50 or better on the naked ego. After morph and gear modifications 60 - 80 is normal. Occasionally, someone will be able to justify a monster skill of 90+ with out producing a handycaped character. At first is was surprising to look at a sheet and see a character with 5 doctorates. But for characters that's the norm. Probably, a future filled with multi-disciplinary experts is an accurate description of what's coming down the pike. But I feel it should still be impressive. It should feel like an accomplishment. So, when a character has raw infosec of 70 out of the box I'd like to represent what an extraordinary level of skill that is, somehow. Getting that score up to 88 shouldn't be trivial. In addition. Because we don't get enough play time I like to hand out pretty significant amounts of REZ. Typically getting a score from 80 to 88 could be done in 2 sessions. (that might be 1 week of in game time but 2 months of real world time.) Anyhow, it's just something I'm thinking about. Thanks for your comments.

So it is a realism issue. I'd still suggest you add a cost at a level than can be justified as realistic AND that will have the impact you desire on PC finances (if you want them to be rich or struggling). Being an ex-soldier and a hunter I always find flaws with RPG rules for shooting. But I rarely try to fix much it. I typically add some initiative and confined quarters penalties to weapons based on size, because I like how it gives a real choice between carrying everything from an SMG to an LMG. I also often consider (but never done it) adding some sort of carrying penalty, like to Task Actions or something like that - you just get more done if you're carrying a holstered pistol than an overslung AR. That's a realism issue that just bugs me a bit, but in the end I don't think anyone would be happier for it. If I had a player who felt bugged by the fact that his char wouldn't want to be weighed down by a rifle but that this wasn't reflected in the rules, I might do something about it. My point is that if something lacking from the rules limits options or breaks immersion or has other real effects on the enjoyment everyone has, I think it should be fixed. By finding out what it is I really want to adress I have a much easier time figuring out a fix that solves the issue without being overly complex or breaking something elsewhere. Especially realism issues I very often find are solved with very little - if there's any cost very few are going to argue much about it.

Tue, 2013-04-16 17:01

NewtonPulsifer NewtonPulsifer's picture

I tend to see 70 as Doctorate

I tend to see 70 as Doctorate level myself - just with some added experience. That said if you want a more regular joe compaign then you should probably 1. Reduce starting CP (difficult to do after you've already started). or (easier) 2. Decide 70 is Doctorate level, not 60, and 50 is Bachelor's level, not 40. So 60 would be Master's level.

—

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- Isoroku Yamamoto

Tue, 2013-04-16 21:09

OneTrikPony OneTrikPony's picture

I suppose 'reality' does

I suppose 'reality' does characterize my concern here. Simulation is a very close second to story in the games I enjoy. Probably, I'm coming at it assbackward anyhow, trying to give a sense of accomplishment by means of a penalty. It's not a huge issue to me, certainly not as important as finer tactical granularity in the firearms rules as Smokeskin suggests. (I'm working on extended rules for freefall too.) @ newton; could you explain the implications, mechanical and setting, of raising the standard representation of skill rank benchmarks? As written I'm not sure they're not arbitrarily assigned. Texturally, calling a rank40 skill says something about how humans compare to AI. It also tells me that, without taking extra effort or working with a team, a doctor has a 60% chance of success at a task in his field. How much less common would doctorate certification be Rank 70?

—

Mea Culpa: My mode of speech can make others feel uninvited to argue or participate. This is the EXACT opposite of what I intend when I post.

Thu, 2013-04-18 09:48

#10

Erenthia

I would contend that while

I would contend that while paid training tools might be better than freely available ones, the crappiest ones available would be amazingly beyond what we have today. Simulspace simulations, Beta-Forks of recognized experts, and skillsofts loaded and run by your Muse are probably the most common followed by Deep Learning psychosurgery. Beyond that you can start to get [i]really[/i] creative like getting a skillsoft and loading it into a beta-fork of yourself and having the Beta fork do the teaching instead of your muse. Of course specific situations can give rise to even more creative ways of teaching and learning. Getting to the PhD level doesn't really seem so difficult in such a context. In fact I think it's a tad unrealistic that transhumans can only get to 99 when a PhD is 60, but that's hard to do without gutting the core system. I actually have been thinking about how to do that, but I don't have anything concrete.

—

The end really is coming. What comes after that is anyone's guess.

Thu, 2013-04-18 16:17

#11

NewtonPulsifer NewtonPulsifer's picture

OneTrikPony wrote:I suppose

OneTrikPony wrote:
I suppose 'reality' does characterize my concern here. Simulation is a very close second to story in the games I enjoy. Probably, I'm coming at it assbackward anyhow, trying to give a sense of accomplishment by means of a penalty. It's not a huge issue to me, certainly not as important as finer tactical granularity in the firearms rules as Smokeskin suggests. (I'm working on extended rules for freefall too.) @ newton; could you explain the implications, mechanical and setting, of raising the standard representation of skill rank benchmarks? As written I'm not sure they're not arbitrarily assigned. Texturally, calling a rank40 skill says something about how humans compare to AI. It also tells me that, without taking extra effort or working with a team, a doctor has a 60% chance of success at a task in his field. How much less common would doctorate certification be Rank 70?

You could roughly benchmark it at 10 CP per year of schooling. If you take an "average" attribute of 15, then: Bachelors 40 - 2.5 years (its about 4 years in the US, but you don't get a ton of classes in your major right away) Masters 60 - plus 2 years Doctorate 70 - plus 2 years However, this benchmark doesn't give us everything. If somebody has a Doctorate level and 20 years of experience, what should their relative skill level be? What about Bachelors plus 20 years?

—

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- Isoroku Yamamoto

Fri, 2013-04-19 10:13

#12

OneTrikPony OneTrikPony's picture

Erenthia wrote:paid training

Erenthia wrote:
paid training tools might be better than freely available ones, the crappiest ones available would be amazingly beyond what we have today. Simulspace simulations, Beta-Forks of recognized experts, and skillsofts loaded and run by your Muse are probably the most common followed by Deep Learning psychosurgery.

I don't understand. Which of those training techniques are you proposing to be available for free? Those are all fairly expensive. Regardless; I think those advances are fairly well modeled in the skill improvement timeframes (p 153) you can raise a skill by 5 Rez points per month. You can raise multiple skills at that rate. Pretty damned impressive. I agree that the basic system mechanic can be frustratingly linear. But the 99 cap isn't really a cap because only applies to the raw Ego skill. Still it would be nice if the system were more parabolic. That's a pretty interesting observation, Newton. Seems that transhumans are capable of learning more than 6 times faster. I don't think 20 years of experience really represents an increased skill level in an environment of accelerating change. Practice simply means that you're keeping up with the SotA. A doctorate +20 years of experience probably means you've specialized though. Can anyone remind me where to find the rules for the cost of hireing a trainer? I swear I read that in this game.

—

Mea Culpa: My mode of speech can make others feel uninvited to argue or participate. This is the EXACT opposite of what I intend when I post.

Fri, 2013-04-19 19:20

#13

NewtonPulsifer NewtonPulsifer's picture

OneTrikPony wrote:That's a

OneTrikPony wrote:
That's a pretty interesting observation, Newton. Seems that transhumans are capable of learning more than 6 times faster. I don't think 20 years of experience really represents an increased skill level in an environment of accelerating change. Practice simply means that you're keeping up with the SotA. A doctorate +20 years of experience probably means you've specialized though.

Good point about keeping up. For active skills, it could be actual practice (unarmed combat, driving cars, lying to your parents) and for knowledge skills it would be keeping up with the ever changing state of the art (learning stuff as fast as you forget it).

—

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."- Isoroku Yamamoto

Fri, 2013-04-19 22:24

#14

Erenthia

OneTrikPony wrote:

OneTrikPony wrote:
I don't understand. Which of those training techniques are you proposing to be available for free? Those are all fairly expensive. Regardless; I think those advances are fairly well modeled in the skill improvement timeframes (p 153) you can raise a skill by 5 Rez points per month. You can raise multiple skills at that rate. Pretty damned impressive.

Particular simulspace simulations aren't necessarily all that expensive (they likely run the gamut like all software), particularly if you already have the server subscription. Beta-forks don't have a listed cost, so its really a matter of how you get access to it. This is about supply and demand. Think about tutoring now. Prices vary based on skill, but if the tutor can Beta-Fork then he doesn't need compensation for lost time, just the rarity of his skillset. 60 is [i]not[/i] rare in EP. Skillsofts aren't terribly expensive to buy, so renting them is probably cheaper (again software runs the gamut). Deep Learning is the only one likely to be moderately expensive since in most places, you won't want a fork doing this work and it's benefits can't really be replicated by other means. I'll have to look back at difficulties, but skill at 60 plus tools (amortized expense, and doctors with tools paid off can out-compete ones who still have that expense). There's still supply and demand, but you have to weigh the cost/benefit of Deep Learning vs other training techniques, which will moderate the price. You have to remember that skill has been commoditized in EP. If you have a skill of 40 and some basic tools you actually have no competitive edge vs someone who could afford the skillsoft and maybe some better tools than you. That means that a skill of 50 or 60 is really basic as far as renting out your Beta-Forks. But yes, I didn't mean to imply that free training wasn't taken into account in the base mechanics. Just that free training was really really good (and as you pointed out the base game mechanics demonstrate this). Ultimately, I was just parachuting in to point out what was already free-as-in-cheap and if you wanted paid training in your game you should probably come up with something either abstracted out or totally new. I'd go with the former and create a Training expense that was Low below 40, Moderate from 41-59, etc etc. This gives you access to the [i]best[/i] Beta-forks, simulations, and custom AIs to use in place of your Muse. Perhaps even a bonus to social networking rolls to help find people to study with/under (it's basically a network within a network, but to make the mechanics simpler, you just model it as a flat bonus) Maintaining a skill can probably be handled with free-as-in-cheap solutions (go with Low per month if you really feel the players have too much money) and I'd assume that's going on in the background. On the flip side, you could use Training associations as plot-hooks, which is enough in my mind to justify their existence.

—

The end really is coming. What comes after that is anyone's guess.